$50 to anyone who can prove to me Evolution is a lie.

Lenny Flank takes up the $250,000 challenge on Evolution: "I ran into a
reference to a debate between Lenny and Hovind. The commentary
suggested that Lenny ripped him up and that written exchange was on the net
somewhere. True ? If so where can it be found today ?"
http://www.geocities.com/lflank/hovind.htm--
Keeping in tradition with Kent Hovind... I've just issued the $50 challenge,
to anyone who can prove to me Evolution is a lie.
Fifty bucks... to spend any way you want!
http://www.skeptical-christian.net/invite.html[This message has been edited by Sharon357, 08-20-2003]

I'll give ya 100 bucks to prove that evolution isn't a religion/lie.------------------
"As by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? The number of intermediate links between all living and extinct species must have been inconceivably great!" (emphasis added) -- Charles Darwin

Do you have a hundred bucks or is it someone elses a la Hovind?Brian.

No, I don't have 100 bucks I was just wondering why this statement was made "$50 to anyone who can..." If you cannot prove Evolution isn't a lie then how can anyone prove that it is one?It's like saying I saw a pink fuzzy unicorn yesterday, prove me wrong!
But how can I prove you wrong if I don't know if you are right?The answer is your not right. Prove Evolution before you start making statements about proving it isn't true...
Another useless topic.------------------
"As by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? The number of intermediate links between all living and extinct species must have been inconceivably great!" (emphasis added) -- Charles Darwin

Actually you are wrong...evolution is falsifiable and there have been several threads dedicated to this subject. The fact that evolution has been consistently supported by the evidence from multiple disciplines from paleontology to molecular biology is why it is a theory and not a hypothesis...it is a testable hypothesis as well.
Thus, you could go out an try to 1)falsify it yourself 2) look for data that exists to falsify it and attempt to collect your 50 bucks.creationism has no testable or falsifiable hypothesis...it is merely a "goddidit because I believe it and some other guys say so to" hypothesis....it is not science.You also have just shown you do not understand how science works..one does not prove things in science...every hypothesis, theory and law is tentative i.e. subject to revision or complete rejection upon the novel discovery or the results of experimentation that yields results inconsistent with the basics of the hypothesis/theory/law....this is also the opposite of religion based creationism which is based on unchangeable dogma that is forced to ignore contradictory evidence or forced to use completely illogical constructions to try to explain its way out from under data which shows it is wrong.But I do agree with you on one thing....the betting aspect of threads like this are rather uninteresting.

Prophecy,It would be really easy to prove that evolution is a lie. As Mammuthus will tell you, the basis of evolution by natural selection is the change in frequency of alleles in a population. With all the molecular data that has been assembled in the past ten years or so, it should be glaringly obvious if the genetic makeup of a population never changes. This would prove that evolution is false.Failing that, you could try to prove that differential reproductive success (natural selection) has no bearing on genetic changes in a population. That's the cornerstone of the theory of evolution by natural selection. If you prove that the key assumption of Darwin's theory is false, then you win the bet.Good luck!------------------
En la tierra de ciegos, el tuerto es el Rey.

It's not about proving it wrong, that's exactly my point, It's about proving it right. No one can prove something that doesn't exist wrong. It's not there to prove wrong. Adaptation is the only observable part of evolution but Creationists except microevolution as part of life. Don't tell me to prove adaptation wrong. Micro Evolution is correct.------------------
"As by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? The number of intermediate links between all living and extinct species must have been inconceivably great!" (emphasis added) -- Charles Darwin

Prophecy,

quote:

---

No one can prove something that doesn't exist wrong. It's not there to prove wrong.

---

Calm down a minute.The theory of evolution by natural selection asserts that adaptation is at the heart of the diversity of life on Earth. If you accept adaptation, you accept evolution. The changes that make organisms adapt to their environments are the exact same as the changes that, over time, create whole new categories of organisms.Certain land animals adapted to aquatic environments and over time, the adaptations to each successive generation led to the existence of sea mammals like whales and dolphins. Is there a better explanation for why these animals live in the water but can't breathe underwater?There's no magic line where "micro" evolution suddenly stops and organisms don't change any more. The more adaptations, the more changes, the more different these organisms will be from their ancestors.------------------
En la tierra de ciegos, el tuerto es el Rey.

quote:

---

It's not about proving it wrong, that's exactly my point, It's about proving it right. No one can prove something that doesn't exist wrong. It's not there to prove wrong

---

So in order to prove something doesn't exist, it has to exist....Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.My proposal:An ordinary man is sitting on my couch
Observation:I cannot see a man on my couch, let alone sense him in anyway
The proposal is falseSee how that works?JustinC

prophecyexclaimed wrote:
I'll give ya 100 bucks to prove that evolution isn't a religion/lie.
------------------Will the dictionary work?religion, noun.
1. belief in God or gods.
evolution does not require a belief in god(s)2. worship of God or gods.
doesn't fit 3. a particular system of religious belief and worship.
Ex. the Christian religion, the Moslem religion.
often misrepresented by Creationists, saying "evolution" is a system of belief, but the dictionary specifies clearly the system of beliefs must be religious in nature.4. anything done or followed with reverence or devotion.
that's all it's worth to me, laughingly, fifty bucks.
Nobody will care in 100 years from now, what I believed.

quote:

---

The theory of evolution by natural selection asserts that adaptation is at the heart of the diversity of life on Earth. If you accept adaptation, you accept evolution. The changes that make organisms adapt to their environments are the exact same as the changes that, over time, create whole new categories of organisms.

---

"If you accept adaptation, you accept evolution."No, incorrect, adaptation is only a part of evolution, the main parts of evolution are:1. Cosmic evolution- the origin of time, space and matter. Big Bang2. Chemical evolution- the origin of higher elements from hydrogen.3. Stellar and planetary evolution. Origin of stars and planets.4. Organic evolution. Origin of Life.5. Origin of major kinds. Macro-evolution.6. Variations within kinds. Micro-evolution. Only this one has been observed.(from Hovind in that debate.)Basically evolution uses a known fact to manipulate the truth, It uses adaptation as part in the theory. Adaptation is not evolution so Mr. Hambre please stop saying that it is."The changes that make organisms adapt to their environments are the exact same as the changes that, over time, create whole new categories of organisms"There is no proof of Evolution ocurring over time, so your theory is left obviously unproven and without evidence.------------------
"As by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? The number of intermediate links between all living and extinct species must have been inconceivably great!" (emphasis added) -- Charles Darwin

Will the dictionary work?religion, noun.
1. belief in God or gods.
evolution does not require a belief in god(s)2. worship of God or gods.
doesn't fit3. a particular system of religious belief and worship.

quote:

---

Ex. the Christian religion, the Moslem religion.
often misrepresented by Creationists, saying "evolution" is a system of belief, but the dictionary specifies clearly the system of beliefs must be religious in nature.

​

4. anything done or followed with reverence or devotion.
that's all it's worth to me, laughingly, fifty bucks.
Nobody will care in 100 years from now, what I believed.

---

Religion: A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.Set of beliefs: Evolution
Practices: Science Courses
Based on teachings of Darwin!
A Religion.(dictionary.com, meaning number 3.)------------------
"As by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? The number of intermediate links between all living and extinct species must have been inconceivably great!" (emphasis added) -- Charles Darwin

Hovind doesn't know what he's talking about. Not surprising, of course. Honestly why would you take a creeationists word on what evolution is? I wouldn't ask an atheist to describe Christianity, or a Chrisitian to tell me about Islam.The Theory of Evolution states that the diversity of life on earth can be explained through a process of decent through modification, where organisms are adapted to their environment through a process of natural selection and random mutation.That's it. That's all. The other stuff is science, but it's not evolution. For instance, if you read Gould's "The Structure of Modern Evolutionary Theory" or any other evolutionary text, it covers biology, and that's it. The big bang is never discussed (except incidentally, perhaps), or any of the other stuff. Wrong again. "Adaptation" as a phenomenon is an evolutionary idea. It was Darwin's idea, remember? He came up with adaptation in "Origin of Species". Adaptation wasn't a "known fact" until evolutionists pointed it out so please give credit where credit is due. But adaptation is sufficient to explain the origin of new species through time. So it is, in fact, evolution.

Religion is revelatory. Science is not. Case closed - not a religion. Anyway modern evolutinary theory isn't "based on the teachings of Darwin" any more than modern physics is just Newton's ideas. There's a lot more going on. We don't teach from Darwin's books anymore, you might have noticed. On the other hand your religion has been using the same textbook for 2000 years or more. Get with the times!

"But adaptation is sufficient to explain the origin of new species through time. So it is, in fact, evolution."Again you use adaptation as a blinding curtain to hide the falisies of evolution. Adaptation happens, Evolving Creatures over time to different creatures doesn't, No creature has ever adapted to the degree to be a different animal.Darwin wasn't the first one to recognize adaptation, ( in my view as a Creationist ) Noah did when putting animals on the Ark. He would get one dog and that dog would adapt to the other species of dog. See the Below Link: Caring for the Animals on the Ark | Answers in Genesis Look at "What is a kind?" In the reference it explains in great detail what I just explained above in miniscul detail.------------------
"As by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? The number of intermediate links between all living and extinct species must have been inconceivably great!" (emphasis added) -- Charles Darwin